Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




TiredSoul
03-16-2017, 02:14 PM
So here's my question:

Under 121 the most restrictive set of regs apply.
So what if a crew violates an obscure Chinese rule while operating in Chinese airspace ( eg Delta, Atlas) ? A rule that is more strict or absent in FAA rules?
What if you have an altitude deviation on a STAR in Germany or a SID in Australia?
How does the FAA deal with a report from the German LBA?
What are the steps for a violation in foreign airspace to lead to FAA certificate enforcement action of a U.S. crewmember ?


galaxy flyer
03-16-2017, 05:22 PM
FAR 91.703 is the reference. A lot will depend on the facts, but the foreign CAA will send the notice of violation to ICAO in Montreal for the FAA to handle. It'll be very political, witness the Legacy/B737 mid-air over Brazil--jail time, finally bailed to the US Government who promised their return for trial.

Really not much different than any violation of law in a foreign country.
GF

JohnBurke
03-16-2017, 06:05 PM
So here's my question:

Under 121 the most restrictive set of regs apply.
So what if a crew violates an obscure Chinese rule while operating in Chinese airspace ( eg Delta, Atlas) ? A rule that is more strict or absent in FAA rules?
What if you have an altitude deviation on a STAR in Germany or a SID in Australia?
How does the FAA deal with a report from the German LBA?
What are the steps for a violation in foreign airspace to lead to FAA certificate enforcement action of a U.S. crewmember ?

The FAA does not enforce foreign regulation.

When operating in a foreign country, one is beholden to observe the regulations imposed by that country. Where violations occur, the foreign country has the option of taking action, but those options are limited and may appear as fines, warnings, or restrictions to further operate in that country.

An operator who incurs violations of noise or procedure may find itself banned or restricted from future operations in that country.


TiredSoul
03-16-2017, 08:20 PM
So it's more the operator then the individual?
Consider Ar China on JFK kinda thing but this time a U.S. Operator in China.
The FAA will not inforce a Foreign rule, got that but what about not abiding by an ATC clearance ( in Australia) which is the same rule as under FAR's.
The way I understand it is every ICAO nation needs to abide by ICAO regulations, however individual nations can file for an enhanced or stricter rule or additional rules on top of the original one.
As in you can go stricter then ICAO agreed but not more lenient.
So in the case of a violation of the same rule, albeit in foreign airspace, will the FAA actively seek certificate action?
Are we globally under FAA jurisdiction and therefore open to certificate action because we fly a N-reg under an FAA issued air carrier certificate?
Will the FAA charge you with violation of 91.703 if you get dinged in Sandystan?
Am I chasing my own tail here?
What am I missing?

JohnBurke
03-16-2017, 09:40 PM
Yes, you're chasing your tail. See previous reply.

The FAA does not enforce foreign regulation.

You're still required to abide applicable US regulation and operations specifications when operating for a certificate holder outside the US.

PerfInit
04-13-2017, 08:44 PM
There is a growing, systemic problem with operators having "international incidents" and GNE's are on the rise. It's just going to get worse with R-Lat SM... Use caution! Re-Routes are extremely vulnerable to GNE's. ARINC 424 protocols and syntax errors are very insidious. Use a plotting chart and a robust checklist! They will save you from alot of embarassment and paperwork. Fully understand 91.703, ICAO SARP's and The NAT Resource Guide. The "big box" so called International Training is very lacking. One (1) day of class, most likely taught by an instructor with no experince "across the pond" is no good at all! If you don't know how to find ICAO documents such as 7030, 4444, GOLD or foreign country's AIP, you have no business flying outside US Airspace. Even the so called "3rd Party Handlers" have known issues and are still providing out-dated material. Some currently produced IFIM's don't even explain SLOP or Contingency procedures correctly. Lastly, learn and understand the ICAO flight plan codes, particularly the equipment codes. Frequently they are filed with incorrect or missing equipment codes.

jonnyjetprop
04-14-2017, 07:56 PM
I respectfully disagree. The FAA enforces foreign regulations in the since that you violated 91.703 and/or 121.11.

As a brush up, 91.703 requires that you follow ICAO Annex 2 when flying over the high seas and following ICAO Annex 2 as modified by the state rules when flying in another country's airspace. This applies to all US operators (91, 91K, 135, and 121)

FAR 121.11 or 135.3 requires that you follow the more restrictive of the US regulations and ops specs or ICAO Annex 2 as modified by the state rules.

You don't see much of this, unless the violation was over MNPS, NOPAC, or Central Pacific areas. Screw up there and it's guaranteed that you'll be talking to the FAA. The reason why you don't see more international violations is because of the reporting trail between the local aviation authority, ICAO and then the FAA.

Yes, you're chasing your tail. See previous reply.

The FAA does not enforce foreign regulation.

You're still required to abide applicable US regulation and operations specifications when operating for a certificate holder outside the US.

JohnBurke
04-14-2017, 08:23 PM
Screw up there and it's guaranteed that you'll be talking to the FAA.

No, it's not.

It's also not foreign airspace.

galaxy flyer
04-16-2017, 07:08 PM
Just because it's international doesn't preclude a violation. Having investigated some MNPS violations in the AF, I can assure you a GNE will be investigated by the FAA, a response sent back to appropriate CAA and potential enforcement action taken.

GF